 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... |
 |
|
Eric's comment about NASA reminded me
of a humorous (except to taxpayers)
story which I guarantee is 100% true...
I was rooting around at a metal recycling / selling place near
Oakland airport and came across a BIG box with spools
of aviation grade wire. They wanted $1/pound so I started
pulling out all the spools of Teflon & Tefzel wire that looked useful.
In the same box were a bunch of components in ESD bags.
Those are the silver & pink bags that shield sensitive components
from "ElectroStatic Discharge" damage. I opened a few to see
what was inside (these were $1/pound too 
Turns out the box contained a bunch of stuff surplused from Loral
for the International Space Station (non-flight backup / mockup / ???)
Digging through this box showed me clearly why everything in the space
industry is SOOOO expensive! Sure, I found 17 different versions
of a prototype circuit board - about 2" x 3" that must do some arcane thing.
But... at least those deserved to be double bagged and accompanied by
10 or more pages of paperwork. But some of the other stuff....
They apparently used the same "bagging & marking" system to ship ALL
the goods provided for the NASA contract. Some ESD bags contained
a 17 page shipping list, and if you looked carefully - you would eventually find
that line 10 on page 14 listed "Washers, Flat, 8/32 - Qty 2" -
and sure enough, there would be two little flat washers in the bag, or tucked
into the folds of the 17 page shipping list. I could only imagine the paperwork
that would be required to replace one of the washers if it got lost in the
folds of paper or bags.
Other items which were dutifully protected by double ESD bags and ample
paperwork included resistors, screws, mounting brackets, etc..
This appalled me on one level, and amused on other. As I opened the various
ESD pouches it was a little like Christmas - each was a surprise. And just
like Christmas, the pile of discarded paperwork and ESD bags grew & grew!
In the end, I bought lots of wire (enough for several airplanes), and saved a
few of the circuit boards as souvenier trinkets showing (the miniscule changes)
from Version 00 to Version 17. But the cheapskate in me couldn't see paying
a $1 per pound for all that paperwork, so I left that behind!
So... my airplane is wired with "space grade" aviation wire. I had to look up
some of the codes to see what they wire. Turns out that some of the wire
is silver plated. Neat stuff - and quite an insight into NASA's business practices.
At least they're trying!
Greg
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:51 am Post subject: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... |
|
|
At 03:56 PM 11/17/2006 -0500, you wrote:
| Quote: | Eric's comment about NASA reminded me
of a humorous (except to taxpayers)
story which I guarantee is 100% true...
I was rooting around at a metal recycling / selling place near
Oakland airport and came across a BIG box with spools
of aviation grade wire. They wanted $1/pound so I started
pulling out all the spools of Teflon & Tefzel wire that looked useful.
In the same box were a bunch of components in ESD bags.
Those are the silver & pink bags that shield sensitive components
from "ElectroStatic Discharge" damage. I opened a few to see
what was inside (these were $1/pound too
|
<snip>
| Quote: |
They apparently used the same "bagging & marking" system to ship ALL
the goods provided for the NASA contract. Some ESD bags contained
a 17 page shipping list, and if you looked carefully - you would
eventually find
that line 10 on page 14 listed "Washers, Flat, 8/32 - Qty 2" -
and sure enough, there would be two little flat washers in the bag, or tucked
into the folds of the 17 page shipping list. I could only imagine the
paperwork
that would be required to replace one of the washers if it got lost in the
folds of paper or bags.
Other items which were dutifully protected by double ESD bags and ample
paperwork included resistors, screws, mounting brackets, etc..
This appalled me on one level, and amused on other. As I opened the various
ESD pouches it was a little like Christmas - each was a surprise. And just
like Christmas, the pile of discarded paperwork and ESD bags grew & grew!
In the end, I bought lots of wire (enough for several airplanes), and saved a
few of the circuit boards as souvenier trinkets showing (the miniscule
changes)
from Version 00 to Version 17. But the cheapskate in me couldn't see paying
a $1 per pound for all that paperwork, so I left that behind!
|
The reason for what appears to be organized insanity is
relatively simple. I'll suggest that a view from inside-looking-
out is illuminating.
Most of my tenure at Raytheon (Beech) was in the Missiles
Business Unit. We were as close to a skunk works as could be found
in Wichita aviation. We did our own aero, structures and
systems designs. We did our own software, laid out our own
boards, prototyped and flew our own products after a rigorous
pass over a hardware-in-the-loop simulation (for software)
teamed with 100% shake-n-bake screening (for hardware). We
were a small group . . . about 100 folks at our peak. My division
vice president was 25 steps from my desk. The folks bucking rivets
were immediately under my desk on the floor below. Everyone
enjoyed their work as far as I could tell. It was demonstrated
by the attitudes displayed in our team meetings. No matter how
bad things might be going in some segment of the project,
one always walked out of a meeting encouraged by the support
and offers for help from others on the team. We all had the
same goal. Deliver a working product to a satisfied customer
and have fun doing it.
One product we crafted was the AQM-37 super-sonic target.
Launched at 1.5M and 50,000 feet, it would climb to 125,000
feet, accelerate to 4.0M and dive on ships a sea. It cost about
$100,000 and always went into the ocean.
But it was JUST a target. It would be used one time
only. How much effort should be expended on reliability?
The short answer is LOTS. To utilize our $100,000 expendable
took months of planning and organization by others to get
all the aircraft, ships, men, weapons and test support systems
in place. I imagine that when our little player entered the
scene from stage right, several $millions$ had already
been spent to set the stage.
For 1100 or so launches, I think our AQM pooped its pants
two or three times. All in all, we felt pretty good about
a 99.7 or 99.8 percent reliability number. Our competition
was not nearly so good. Nonetheless, there were times that
we had to gather up our shovels and buckets and exit the
sandbox in disappointment. It may well be that the 6 o'clock
news opened with some breathless journotwit telling the
locals how some cowtown aerospace company just screwed the
taxpayers out of a few $millions$.
Static bags? Yeah we used those. But not for washers.
Pieces of paper in every bag? Only on some complex items.
How did we avoid carrying those practices to the
ultimate extreme? Two conditions: (1) smart people and
(2) very little "standing in line at windows". More
on this later.
Now, let's multiply Beech Missiles by 100 or 200 fold.
Transplant from Cowpattyville, KS and spread out over
places like L.A., Orlando, Trenton, and Seattle. Add to
this mix the fact that our mission cost is 20 to 100
$millions$ per shot. Stir in EPA, OSHA, Union, ISO,
etc. work rules along with administrators of those rules
who have it in their power to bring some segment (and
essentially all) of your program to a halt.
Finally, add the fact that there are watchdogs throughout
the system who are intent not so much on getting the job
done right but on insuring traceability and assessing
proper assignment of blame should things NOT go right.
One might properly conclude, "Well, just staff your operation
with smart people and most of your problems go away."
True. But in the NASA venue, one is not allowed to be
very selective about who touches what and under what
circumstances. Further, a 99.8% reliability number
is far short of satisfactory. So what's a poor NASA
program manager to do? The personnel are handed to you
by HR. The materials are handed you my supply
chain. The work rules are handed to you by folks
who could not care less that your product is
successful or even good value. . . you "do it by the
rules or else." Hence, every aspect of the program
is carved into almost unchangeable stone before the
first lathe tool touches a piece of aluminum.
Hence, the "safest" thing to do is double-bag everything
including the lock washers. Document the pedigree of
every rivet all the way back to the bauxite mine. You're
driven to stack every precaution one can imagine
on top of every effort - not because it makes
probability of success greater but because it allows
you to show that it wasn't your fault when the product
poops its pants.
There's an interesting little interview with a modern
day Charles Kettering on my website. The man's name
is Dr. Virgil Elings. You can get the audio track at:
http://tinyurl.com/nudtw
This gentleman has demonstrated that the most efficient
pathway to success is an exploitation of time, talent
and resources of "smart people" who are not encumbered
by what I call, "impediments to progress" and he calls,
"standing in line at windows". I've worked with some
very capable associates and managers but my professional
wet-dream would be to have enjoyed an association with
the likes of Dr. Elings.
Bottom line is that there are really clear (if not sane)
reasons for $600 hammers, $400 toilet seats and double static
bagged washers. Reasons that breathless infotwits
will never understand and the majority of their audiences
wont either. Our leadership's (I use the word
with reservedly) insatiable quest to codify every
aspect of the citizen's existence has become our
own worst nighmare of no-value-added overhead. Overhead
intended only to absolve most of us of responsibility,
relieve us from any self judgement as to the honorability
of our behavior and insulate us from blame. Plotting present
trends out to the future does not offer an encouraging
picture.
I'm ALWAYS away from my desk when the ISO audit folks
are scheduled to come though the department. It's
insurance against embarrassing my company should I
succumb to the urge for letting those folks know what
I think of their presence in my workplace.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ainut(at)hiwaay.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... |
|
|
Very well said. However, you might be preaching to the choir here  .
As most of my working life has been for, and in, gov't., I can relate
100% and do attest that everything you say is true.
If you try to fix it, regardless of your personal grade (rank), you are
called Don Quixote and subsequently ignored.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
| Quote: |
<nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
At 03:56 PM 11/17/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> Eric's comment about NASA reminded me
> of a humorous (except to taxpayers)
> story which I guarantee is 100% true...
> I was rooting around at a metal recycling / selling place near
> Oakland airport and came across a BIG box with spools
> of aviation grade wire. They wanted $1/pound so I started
> pulling out all the spools of Teflon & Tefzel wire that looked useful.
>
> In the same box were a bunch of components in ESD bags.
> Those are the silver & pink bags that shield sensitive components
> from "ElectroStatic Discharge" damage. I opened a few to see
> what was inside (these were $1/pound too
<snip>
>
> They apparently used the same "bagging & marking" system to ship ALL
> the goods provided for the NASA contract. Some ESD bags contained
> a 17 page shipping list, and if you looked carefully - you would
> eventually find
> that line 10 on page 14 listed "Washers, Flat, 8/32 - Qty 2" -
> and sure enough, there would be two little flat washers in the bag,
> or tucked
> into the folds of the 17 page shipping list. I could only imagine
> the paperwork
> that would be required to replace one of the washers if it got lost
> in the
> folds of paper or bags.
>
> Other items which were dutifully protected by double ESD bags and ample
> paperwork included resistors, screws, mounting brackets, etc..
>
> This appalled me on one level, and amused on other. As I opened the
> various
> ESD pouches it was a little like Christmas - each was a surprise.
> And just
> like Christmas, the pile of discarded paperwork and ESD bags grew &
> grew!
> In the end, I bought lots of wire (enough for several airplanes), and
> saved a
> few of the circuit boards as souvenier trinkets showing (the
> miniscule changes)
> from Version 00 to Version 17. But the cheapskate in me couldn't see
> paying
> a $1 per pound for all that paperwork, so I left that behind!
The reason for what appears to be organized insanity is
relatively simple. I'll suggest that a view from inside-looking-
out is illuminating.
Most of my tenure at Raytheon (Beech) was in the Missiles
Business Unit. We were as close to a skunk works as could be found
in Wichita aviation. We did our own aero, structures and
systems designs. We did our own software, laid out our own
boards, prototyped and flew our own products after a rigorous
pass over a hardware-in-the-loop simulation (for software)
teamed with 100% shake-n-bake screening (for hardware). We
were a small group . . . about 100 folks at our peak. My division
vice president was 25 steps from my desk. The folks bucking rivets
were immediately under my desk on the floor below. Everyone
enjoyed their work as far as I could tell. It was demonstrated
by the attitudes displayed in our team meetings. No matter how
bad things might be going in some segment of the project,
one always walked out of a meeting encouraged by the support
and offers for help from others on the team. We all had the
same goal. Deliver a working product to a satisfied customer
and have fun doing it.
One product we crafted was the AQM-37 super-sonic target.
Launched at 1.5M and 50,000 feet, it would climb to 125,000
feet, accelerate to 4.0M and dive on ships a sea. It cost about
$100,000 and always went into the ocean.
But it was JUST a target. It would be used one time
only. How much effort should be expended on reliability?
The short answer is LOTS. To utilize our $100,000 expendable
took months of planning and organization by others to get
all the aircraft, ships, men, weapons and test support systems
in place. I imagine that when our little player entered the
scene from stage right, several $millions$ had already
been spent to set the stage.
For 1100 or so launches, I think our AQM pooped its pants
two or three times. All in all, we felt pretty good about
a 99.7 or 99.8 percent reliability number. Our competition
was not nearly so good. Nonetheless, there were times that
we had to gather up our shovels and buckets and exit the
sandbox in disappointment. It may well be that the 6 o'clock
news opened with some breathless journotwit telling the
locals how some cowtown aerospace company just screwed the
taxpayers out of a few $millions$.
Static bags? Yeah we used those. But not for washers.
Pieces of paper in every bag? Only on some complex items.
How did we avoid carrying those practices to the
ultimate extreme? Two conditions: (1) smart people and
(2) very little "standing in line at windows". More
on this later.
Now, let's multiply Beech Missiles by 100 or 200 fold.
Transplant from Cowpattyville, KS and spread out over
places like L.A., Orlando, Trenton, and Seattle. Add to
this mix the fact that our mission cost is 20 to 100
$millions$ per shot. Stir in EPA, OSHA, Union, ISO,
etc. work rules along with administrators of those rules
who have it in their power to bring some segment (and
essentially all) of your program to a halt.
Finally, add the fact that there are watchdogs throughout
the system who are intent not so much on getting the job
done right but on insuring traceability and assessing
proper assignment of blame should things NOT go right.
One might properly conclude, "Well, just staff your operation
with smart people and most of your problems go away."
True. But in the NASA venue, one is not allowed to be
very selective about who touches what and under what
circumstances. Further, a 99.8% reliability number
is far short of satisfactory. So what's a poor NASA
program manager to do? The personnel are handed to you
by HR. The materials are handed you my supply
chain. The work rules are handed to you by folks
who could not care less that your product is
successful or even good value. . . you "do it by the
rules or else." Hence, every aspect of the program
is carved into almost unchangeable stone before the
first lathe tool touches a piece of aluminum.
Hence, the "safest" thing to do is double-bag everything
including the lock washers. Document the pedigree of
every rivet all the way back to the bauxite mine. You're
driven to stack every precaution one can imagine
on top of every effort - not because it makes
probability of success greater but because it allows
you to show that it wasn't your fault when the product
poops its pants.
There's an interesting little interview with a modern
day Charles Kettering on my website. The man's name
is Dr. Virgil Elings. You can get the audio track at:
http://tinyurl.com/nudtw
This gentleman has demonstrated that the most efficient
pathway to success is an exploitation of time, talent
and resources of "smart people" who are not encumbered
by what I call, "impediments to progress" and he calls,
"standing in line at windows". I've worked with some
very capable associates and managers but my professional
wet-dream would be to have enjoyed an association with
the likes of Dr. Elings.
Bottom line is that there are really clear (if not sane)
reasons for $600 hammers, $400 toilet seats and double static
bagged washers. Reasons that breathless infotwits
will never understand and the majority of their audiences
wont either. Our leadership's (I use the word
with reservedly) insatiable quest to codify every
aspect of the citizen's existence has become our
own worst nighmare of no-value-added overhead. Overhead
intended only to absolve most of us of responsibility,
relieve us from any self judgement as to the honorability
of our behavior and insulate us from blame. Plotting present
trends out to the future does not offer an encouraging
picture.
I'm ALWAYS away from my desk when the ISO audit folks
are scheduled to come though the department. It's
insurance against embarrassing my company should I
succumb to the urge for letting those folks know what
I think of their presence in my workplace.
Bob . . .
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... |
|
|
Bob wrote...
This gentleman has demonstrated that the most efficient
pathway to success is an exploitation of time, talent
and resources of "smart people" who are not encumbered
by what I call, "impediments to progress" and he calls,
"standing in line at windows". I've worked with some
very capable associates and managers but my professional
wet-dream would be to have enjoyed an association with
the likes of Dr. Virgil Elings. http://tinyurl.com/nudtw
Greg writes...
My professional dream would have been to work with Kelly Johnson
in his Skunk Works. I was born a few years too late for that to happen,
but I had an almost equally satisfying stint working with the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)!
http://www.DARPA.mil/body/overtheyears.html
They had very few "impediments to progress" - and that's only one
of the many things that attracted me to the place.
DARPA is an unusually small Government agency that funds research.
They were formed back in 1958 (same year as NASA) and their research led to
the ARPAnet, Stealth technology, tele-surgery, body armor, and many other things.
Some items are now classified, some aren't. In accordance with their mission,
DARPA has had some costly dead ends, as well as some tremendous successes.
They do all this with a staff of government folks that has "swelled" to 240 people
since they were formed in 1958. One of my favorite DARPA examples is a useful device
that went from "concept" to "deployed" in under a month during the first Iraq war.
(Can't provide more details now, try again in about 40 years.
Some people argue that DARPA has reached the tipping point at 240 people,
and the "good years" are all behind them. I hope (& suspect) that isn't true!
My background includes many years working for DARPA; first as a military
officer, then as a contractor. So when I was digging wire out of dusty boxes
in Oakland and benefiting from the dietrus of the NASA and Loral contract -
it wasn't that I didn't understand what or why the Loral folks had to do this.
Instead, it reminded me of my years at DARPA and deepened my appreciation
of the time I DIDN'T spend "standing in line at windows" and taking
unmarked ESD bags back to my desk to dig for two tiny washers
that were quite literally "lost in the paperwork".
So while I was both amused & appalled, I wasn't surprised at what NASA had
required or what Loral had to do to comply with their contract.
NASA has a very different mission than DARPA, and the NASA staff of more than
19,000 has a longer & much more complicated chain of accountability
than DARPA's staff of 240.
This isn't meant as NASA bashing. Instead, consider it as encouragement and
a challenge for the competent folks to seek out rewarding opportunities
that still exist at places like: DARPA, Scaled Composites, and other places.
These opportunities aren't gone with Kelly Johnson, they're just hard to find.
A good friend of mine helped me build my Lancair ES and now he works at
Scaled Composites. (I know they have some DARPA contracts.) He can't
tell me what he's working on, but he can't hide the smile on his face either!
The satisfying & rewarding jobs are out there - you just have to find them!
Greg
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
